I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.

Anyway, quoting the review:

Quote

The question of the day is, of course, whether this is "enough" compared to the impressive Tamron AF SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD VC ? Well, we have some doubts here. We'd say that among the primary criteria the Canon lens has an edge in terms of contrast (at max. aperture), build quality and it has a slightly better bokeh. However, the Tamron lens is as good in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer. So unless you're heading into a war zone (thus requiring max. equipment quality) a premium of one grand (EUR) over the Tamron lens seems a little excessive.

I can only agree, and I add that it's actually utterly ridiculous.

They improved the build quality to a decency level but it's hard to praise Canon for that. They should be ashamed for the QC issues of the previous version, considering the price tag and the pro user target.

Looking at those graph it's hard to justify the hype for its sharpness either, and the bokeh is probably a tad worse than the previous version.

And the price? I would never pay more than twice as much as for the Tamron, which also has VC. By the way Tamron also offers 6 years of warranty and an excellent service. It's pure value.

I'm somewhat glad that the previous super hype surrounding the 24-70 II isn't really justified. If it did turn out to be as super as rumored, I would likely have swallowed the ludicrous $2300 price, which I really shouldn't.

It is very good zoom lens with "an almost surprising drop in border quality at 70mm with resolution figures that are inferior compared to the old version of the lens." (Photozone)

"However, the Tamron lens is as good in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer."

I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.

Anyway, quoting the review:

Quote

The question of the day is, of course, whether this is "enough" compared to the impressive Tamron AF SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD VC ? Well, we have some doubts here. We'd say that among the primary criteria the Canon lens has an edge in terms of contrast (at max. aperture), build quality and it has a slightly better bokeh. However, the Tamron lens is as good in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer. So unless you're heading into a war zone (thus requiring max. equipment quality) a premium of one grand (EUR) over the Tamron lens seems a little excessive.

I can only agree, and I add that it's actually utterly ridiculous.

They improved the build quality to a decency level but it's hard to praise Canon for that. They should be ashamed for the QC issues of the previous version, considering the price tag and the pro user target.

Looking at those graph it's hard to justify the hype for its sharpness either, and the bokeh is probably a tad worse than the previous version.

And the price? I would never pay more than twice as much as for the Tamron, which also has VC. By the way Tamron also offers 6 years of warranty and an excellent service. It's pure value.

Yup. I've had my SP 24-70mm f/2.8 for four months now and couldn't be happier. While I never seriously considered the new ef 24-70 II due to price and lack of IS (I don't make no money from this), the whole "onion bokeh" hysteria cracked me up (non issue). To see the new Canon also has it (still non issue for me) makes me chuckle. Having a six year warranty in case my front element comes loose makes me laugh out loud...

personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?

personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?

Yes. The zoom is large, smooth and in front. It turns opposite to the Cannon. The focus ring is small, but right behind the zoom ring, making it quicker for me to adjust on the fly. Familiarity with the equipment is all that is required. Some folks don't care for the push/pull zoom on the 100-400L, but I am quite fond of it. Plus, if I'm on a boat that is sinking, I can pump out water with it

g3act

Interesting to see how the Photozone resolution figures are very different to those posted by Roger at Lensrentals.com.

According to Roger, the Canon is 30% better than the Tamron at 70mm, but Photozone show it to be worse

I own the Tamron and have found it to be very good indeed. The AF can be a bit hit and miss in poor light, but generally the results I get from it are superb. I could never afford the new Canon 24-70 anyway, but at least the red ring envy won't exist for the 24-70 after this latest review.

WRT to onion bokeh, I did have a little chuckle after reading all the Tamron bashing earlier this year.

Klaus is a tough grader and tells it like it is. I like his reviews!However, Lens Rentals has the advantage of having several lenses to test, and Roger showed us what a average lens could do. Testing one or two lenses is a tough proposition, since sample variation is a real thing. A tested can only look for obvious defects and if there are none, then the lens should be typical--- except that it isn't.

Interesting to see how the Photozone resolution figures are very different to those posted by Roger at Lensrentals.com.

I suspect that all manufacturers have major quality issues with the new lenses due to very low tolerances acceptable. Maybe Zeiss can come up with high enough quality standards but Zeiss also has a high enoug price for that. I guess it's up to the user to put each lens through a test and send back the broken ones (which will be delivered to other customers).

Canon should make a LT-line with the T meaning that it's really quality tested and up to the standards advertised.

Klaus is a tough grader and tells it like it is. I like his reviews!However, Lens Rentals has the advantage of having several lenses to test, and Roger showed us what a average lens could do. Testing one or two lenses is a tough proposition, since sample variation is a real thing. A tested can only look for obvious defects and if there are none, then the lens should be typical--- except that it isn't.

Honestly, I think that when you pay 2150€ for a pro-grade lens sample variation should be minimal and barely noticeable, while in this case they seem worlds apart. It's just unacceptable, it can't be a lottery. Not for this price. This lens is 25% to 350% more expensive than any Zeiss lens.

I've seen 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina bashed here for much much less and for 400€ priced lenses. At least let's all be objective about the epic fail that it is - for one reason or another.